We will return to our readings this week with:
Anita Berrizbeitia, “Re‐Placing Process”, in Large Parks (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007), pp. 174‐197.
and
“210‐15, 320‐13, 320‐15, 320‐16, 320‐17, 320‐18, 520‐3, 520‐4, 520‐5, 520‐7, 520‐8, 520‐11, 520‐12, 520‐14, 520‐15, 520‐16, 520‐19, 520‐20” , in Time‐Saver Standards for Landscape
Architecture: Design and Construction Data. (New York: McGraw Hill Publishing Company, 1998).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Stacey-
ReplyDeletei like how this reading was about large scale park designs since that is what we are dealing with in Jamaica Bay. The scale of our project was intimidating at first but I like how the author says that with different activities there are many scales simitaneously at work. Each recreational site could be though of as its own park. So its like a park within a park so that your mind is not boggled with meeting all the requirements at once
I thought this reading was really interesting, especially how it related to our project. Berrizbeitia stated that history is as a process itself and that it is "especially relevant to large parks because they occupy sites that have been transformed several times over the course of centuries." My site, Floyd Bennett Field, has done quite a bit of changing over just one century. It started out as small islands that were filled together to create the peninsula that exists today and then was used as one of the most important and influential airports during America's golden age of flying. Today, it has changed again, using small parts of it for various activities. It is important to know where the site has come from to further its potential for the future.
ReplyDeleteDespite a busy week it's nice to have readings again- I liked this one, and not just because they talked about the Corner/Allen Downsview design a lot.
ReplyDeleteEarly on in the reading I got a little discouraged about my design for Jamaica Bay when I read "they (large parks) are the product of deliberate decisions that leave them open- ended in terms of managment, program, and use". Since my project to it's core is about a program I started to worry that I was approaching this urban park the wrong way. But then I continued on and read "place is fundamentally tied to questions of human experience". And I realised, yes, maybe my design is centered around a program, but that program is centered around a goal of reconnecting the people around my site in a way that will meet real needs they have.
Overall though I thought this reading very applicable to our project.
What I took from this reading was how important the process of the landscape is in design. This idea is similar to previous readings we had and the first set of designs we looked into. Instead of looking at the landscape as two dimensional and in that moment, rather look at it as a system that progresses in time. “Process in landscape architecture typically refers to the use of nature’s productive capacities as technique to develop the landscape.” I don’t think there could be a better definition that fits my design. I am using the lands capabilities to produce methane to create my method for development. By looking at what the land can provide we can then prepare a design that can progress with the land.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe passages about open and closed systems were interesting to me as it was something that I have never really contemplated before and yet they are very important decisions when organizing a design. Deciding whether to keep one area an open system compromised of a newly planted forests with intentions of succession, or deciding to keep an area mowed at all times, are decisions dependent on visual and programmatic intentions. Also the part on designing for programs and year round events emphasizes the importance on what makes a place special to people. Different events or programs attract different people at different times of the day and different times of the year, and trying to accommodate to all them seems like an impossible task. My question is how can we accommodate vast numbers of people of all different ages, cultures, with different interests, personalties, and opinions?
ReplyDeleteAbout the Time Saver reading, I just want to say that I was happy to see they covered skatepark design.
This was a great reading in understanding and developing strategy that I wish we would have read earlier. Some of the key concepts that we can relate to are the four methods of the process-based approach. (page 5) First, “designing processes rather than a landscape’s final form”, this is done by understanding the existing systems and the different ways they can be organized. This relates back to our first step of designing a “device”, the device was our attempt at structuring the different systems we first studied. The next two methods are strongly related and they are site research and existing conditions, which pretty much is just a breakdown of what we call inventory. The fourth tactic involves an expectancy and realization of change and adaptation and an understanding how our objectives for our designs can evolve with the various dynamic systems. This to me was the key topic, and one we should all be thinking about in our designs. These processes are circular in style similar to other models we have learned about, such as the Steinitz model, in that they repeat and change as new information and new thoughts are added to the equation. In relation to my project I now see my original analysis in coming up with a solution to the Belt Parkway was part of a larger system that I was really attempting to address, circulation. As my understanding of process and the site has grown, if could go back I would change my "device" to relate to the larger circulation and the principles of time, distance, method, and accessibility. Another important discussion in the reading was of strategy and the organization and layering of the different systems; history, culture, society, ecology, materials, etc. (page 6) Towards the end of the reading I starting to think about what it means for a park to be able to adapt and change and Is it this ability that leads to success, such as Central Park? If this is the case than the Highline, which many believe is a success becomes nothing more than a” fashionable” park that will eventually lose its popularity with time. How will a park, which is focused on what I believe form and material, adapt to change?
ReplyDeleteEvery time we have a reading for this class I think “I wish I would have read that first,” and this time was no different. I liked this reading a lot. Like Victoria I definitely felt the emphasis of this reading was on the process and how Landscape Architects have changed their approach over time. I liked the examples that were used and felt they were parks I could understand because of the case studies we did earlier in the year.
ReplyDeleteThis reading has helped put in place how to approach a design for a large park. It tends to be overwhelming in trying to place a recreation center at such a large scale. It’s not about the placement and its final location. It’s the process, not just the preliminary process, but the process that occurs after the final plan and documents. A large urban park is successful when it accommodates growth and change for the future. Over time, shifts in the economy, ecology, demographics, connectivity and demand of certain programs occur at various rates. How do we design to accommodate these changes? We can begin to examine the history of the site and explore the exposure of this history to the public. To me, it appears to be that the design of a large urban park does not have a final form, but a form that can accommodate for various activities, a buffer if you will. A buffer that wraps the central location of the program acts as the room left for accommodation. I would like to begin to explore more of the history of the site. Providing an area where housing may be extended (in the water) contributes to the future growth of Brooklyn and Queens both. In my opinion, it appears that demographics guide the economy of the cities. In this case, an area adaptable to future growth of an economy is important. The aquaponic and agricultural farming may begin to generate revenue for the city as well as provide jobs. An exploration of the solar and wind farms may put into perspective the importance of the environment and begin to educate the city.
ReplyDeleteAh, the comparison of Parc de la Villette to Fresh Kills. Seems like Parc de la Villette is more of a 20th century park and Fresh Kills is the definition of a 21st century park. I hopefully will find out soon!
IBZ SAYS:::
ReplyDeleteMan's landscape has evolved over eras to become what it is today. Whether you think that it has changed for better or for worse does not affect the belief that a new vision is now necessary. Tthe "laissez-faire" trend that had fueled capitalism for so long was also partially responsible for uncontrolled world urbanization, a failed suburban experiment and an accumulation of excess post-consumer waste. This requires us to redesign the way we live.
The idea of creating frameworks that guide the transformation of the landscape is a step towards this re-imagination. Uncertainty of what the future has in store for us is pushing architects and planners to adopt mechanisms that will, over time, lead this transormation. The idea is that our landscapes will morph and adapt to reflect advancements in different academic fileds while also supporting our everchanging needs.
I definitely liked this reading. I think where it talks about landscapes being about process, not just composition is very applicable in our current design studio. Our devices, park areas, and how we arrange them are all based on a larger process in mind of how the site functions. After this current project, along with Tullochs class, I would agree that there definitely is a shift in greater site research as well. Inventory inventory inventory. Also I think that although our projects may not have flashy names like “dynamic coalition” we still use the same practices and guidelines as the big shots for creating our designs. We are all aware that scale, boundaries, ecology, adaptation, etc. are all necessary considerations for designing, and I think many of us include some of these considerations subconsciously at this point which I think shows that there is hope for us and our ability to design effectively.
ReplyDeleteI found this reading very interesting, especially being where we are in the stage of our design. Its is difficult to wrap your hands around a site of this scale with a single design approach. Using the idea of a process based approach that has layers and leaves the design open ended helps me to understand a way to move foreward. "More weight is placed on establishing an argument for the objectives of a project than on visions for its final form." I feel that this statment sums up the idea of process based appocah and that its not always about final form but more about the reason.
ReplyDeleteI see the progression of design thinking as early american parks were situated on less than ideal lands and the best areas were developed, now we have swithed to design on abandoned industrial sites and landfills for proposed parks. These processed based progressions have incorporated a dynamic aspect to these sites. Now we are designing in away to anticipate change and accomidate growth with a gradient as an integral part of the design. I feel that this is a great approach as our surroundings are forever evolving and our population is ever increasing, and space is at a premium, and just as fads come and go so do uses of space, so by designing in a dynamic fashion we change with the times through this process driven design.
ReplyDelete